Chandan Sapkota's blog > [Chandan Sapkota's blog] The political J-curve. Rawls on Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street and the deradicalized Rawls | The Moral Sciences Club. At the New York Times' Opinionator blog, Steven Mazie urges Occupy Wall Street to take inspiration from the late, great political philosopher John Rawls: Rawls’s boldest claim — that inequality in society is only justified if its least well-off members fare better than they would under any other scheme — could provide a lodestar for the protests. Rawls was no Marxist: this “difference principle” acknowledges that a productive, free society will be home to at least some degree of inequality. But the principle insists that if the rich get richer while wages and social capital of the poor and middle class are stagnant or falling, there is something seriously wrong. I don't believe that this is Rawls' boldest claim.
That the basic structure of a society's political economy ought to benefit its least advantaged members as much as any feasible alternative basic structure is not really so bold a claim. Rawls theory of justice has two principles. Rawls, Radicalism and Occupy Wall Street: a Response to Wilkinson | Experts' Corner.
Last Friday, I posted a piece in The Stone at The New York Times suggesting the work of philosopher John Rawls as an intellectual touchstone for the Occupy Wall Street protest movement. The post has elicited a range of reactions. Of the 102 comments on the Times website, a handful offered ideas for what might be included in an Occupy manifesto, a few maintained that I mischaracterized the protestors’ aims or erred by putting Rawls side by side with the novelist and Tea Party favorite Ayn Rand. Many commenters offered ideas for alternative authors and texts to inspire the Occupiers: Marx, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Wallerstein, Lowi, Wolff, Habermas and Sandel, as well as the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the U.S.
Constitution, the Book of Proverbs and the Golden Rule. Twenty or so comments expressed agreement that Rawlsian ideas should fuel the movement’s agenda. Wilkinson both misreads Rawls and exaggerates the implications of his stance on economic rights.